[¶1.]
In order to get her name placed on the ballot for election to
the United States Senate, Annette Bosworth submitted
nominating petitions containing voters' signatures to the
Secretary of State. On six of the petitions, Bosworth signed
a sworn verification that she personally circulated the
petitions. An investigation revealed she was not the
circulator, and the State charged Bosworth with six counts of
perjury and six counts of offering false or forged
instruments for filing. A jury convicted Bosworth on all
counts, and she appeals. We vacate the convictions for
perjury but affirm the remaining convictions.

BACKGROUND

[¶2.]
In 2014, Bosworth ran for the Republican nomination for a
seat in the United States Senate. Bosworth was a physician
practicing medicine in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. In order
for her name to appear on the ballot, state law required
Bosworth to submit nominating petitions containing at least
1, 995 voters' signatures by March 25, 2014, to the
Office of the Secretary of State.

[¶3.]
The State Board of Elections is authorized to promulgate
rules regarding the procedure for acceptance and verification
of petitions and the contents of petition forms. SDCL 12-1-9.
A petition is defined as a form that is prescribed
by the State Board of Elections, identifies the position the
candidate is seeking, and contains the declaration of
candidacy and the verification of the circulator. SDCL
12-1-3(8). Pursuant to Administrative Rule of South Dakota
(ARSD) 5:02:08:00.03, the circulator's verification must
contain the following language: "I, under oath, state
that I circulated the above petition, that each signer
personally signed this petition in my presence, and that
either the signer or I added the printed name, the residence
address of the signer, the date of signing, and the county of
voter registration."

[¶4.]
Bosworth signed the circulator's verification on six
petitions. She did not, however, personally circulate these
petitions, and none of the voters who signed the petitions
signed in her presence. The voters signed the six petitions
in January 2014 while Bosworth was on a medical-aid mission
in the Philippines. After her return to the United States,
Bosworth signed the petitions and verified them before a
notary between January 20, 2014, and March 24, 2014.

[¶5.]
On March 25, 2014, Bosworth's campaign consultant Patrick
Davis delivered a number of petitions, including the six
petitions bearing Bosworth's verifications as circulator,
to the Office of the Secretary of State. Although Bosworth
did not personally file the petitions, she directed Davis to
do so.

[¶6.]
The Secretary of State conducted a signature-validation
process to determine whether each petition had been properly
completed. After reviewing the petitions, the Secretary of
State certified them as having met the legal requirements for
valid petitions. Accordingly, the Secretary counted the
signatures on the petitions and placed Bosworth's name on
the ballot. Bosworth subsequently lost in the Republican
primary.

[¶7.]
Following the election, the Division of Criminal
Investigation conducted an investigation into allegations
that some of Bosworth's petitions had been filed upon a
false oath. On June 17, 2014, the State indicted Bosworth on
six counts of perjury and six counts of offering false or
forged instruments for filing. Bosworth pleaded not guilty to
all charges.

[¶8.]
On May 18, 2015, Bosworth's case proceeded to a jury
trial. Bosworth admitted she did not personally circulate the
six petitions but denied she committed perjury or filed false
or forged instruments with the Secretary of State. Bosworth
claimed she misunderstood the instructions for the
circulator's verification, mistakenly believing she was
verifying that the signers were registered South Dakota
Republicans and that their signatures were genuine.
Additionally, Bosworth testified that her misconceptions were
based on legal advice she received from Joel Arends, the
lawyer for her campaign. Arends, however, testified for the
prosecution and denied Bosworth's claims, asserting he
explicitly told her that she could not sign the
circulator's verification for petitions she did not
personally circulate.

[¶9.]
Of the six petitions Bosworth verified as the circulator,
only one contained nongenuine voters' signatures. This
petition contained genuine signatures as well as signatures
forged by the leader of a Hutterite religious colony on
behalf of several of its members. The leader added these
signatures under the mistaken belief that he had authority to
do so as the colony's leader. It is undisputed that
Bosworth neither told the leader to forge the signatures nor
learned of the forgeries until after she was indicted.

[¶10.]
Bosworth moved for a judgment of acquittal on the following
grounds: (1) signing a circulator's verification on a
nominating petition and submitting it for filing is not done
as part of a state or federal proceeding or action
under SDCL 22-29-1; (2) a false verification on a nominating
petition does not make the petition a false or forged
instrument under SDCL 22-11-28.1; and (3) there was no
evidence that Bosworth personally offered or filed any of the
six petitions in question. The circuit court denied the
motion. On May 27, 2015, the jury found Bosworth guilty of
six counts of perjury and six counts of offering false or
forged instruments for filing. The circuit court sentenced
Bosworth to two years imprisonment, which was suspended on
the condition that she spend three years on probation and
complete 500 hours of community service. Bosworth appeals her
convictions, alleging the circuit court erred by denying her
motion for judgment of acquittal, and raises the following
issues:

1. Whether signing a circulator's verification on a
nominating petition and submitting it for filing with the
Secretary of State is done in a state or federal
proceeding or action under SDCL 22-29-1.

2. Whether submitting a nominating petition with a
circulator's verification signed by someone other than
the person who circulated the petition is offering a
false or forged instrument under SDCL 22-11-28.1.

3. Whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to
support Bosworth's convictions for offering false or
forged instruments for filing.

STANDARD
OF REVIEW

[¶11.]
Statutory interpretation is a question of law, which we
review de novo. Upell v. Dewey Cty. Comm'n, 2016
S.D. 42, ¶ 6, 880 N.W.2d 69, 71. The denial of a motion
for judgment of acquittal is also a question of law reviewed
de novo. State v. Brim, 2010 S.D. 74, ¶ 6, 789
N.W.2d 80, 83. When reviewing whether evidence is sufficient
to sustain a conviction, we "consider[] the evidence in
a light most favorable to the verdict. A guilty verdict will
not be set aside if the [S]tate's evidence and all
favorable inferences that can be drawn therefrom support a
rational theory of guilt. We do not resolve conflicts in the
evidence, pass on the credibility of the witnesses, determine
the plausibility of an explanation, or weigh the
evidence." State v. Janklow, 2005 S.D. 25,
¶ 16, 693 N.W.2d 685, 693.

DECISION

1.
Whether signing a circulator's verification on a
nominating petition and submitting it for filing with the
Secretary of State is done in a state or federal
proceeding or action under SDCL 22-29-1.

[¶12.]
Bosworth argues that a statement made in the circulator's
verification on a nominating petition and submitted to the
Secretary of State is not done in a proceeding or
action under SDCL 22-29-1. Proceeding and
action are not defined in the statute. Bosworth
claims the words are terms of art that should be interpreted
in line with their established legal meanings. According to
Bosworth, proceeding and action involve
matters occurring in judicial or quasi-judicial adjudicatory
settings. Bosworth argues that other statutes in the South
Dakota Code define proceeding and action in
a way that is consistent with this approach. Because she did
not sign the petitions and submit them to the Secretary of
State as part of a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding,
Bosworth submits that interpreting SDCL 22-29-1 to
criminalize her conduct defies legislative intent.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&para;13.]
The State argues that the phrase proceeding or
action includes more than judicial and quasi-judicial
settings, and that Bosworth&#39;s narrow interpretation
ignores the Legislature&#39;s revision to the statute in
2002. The 2002 revision replaced cases with
state or federal proceeding or action, which the
State claims broadened the scope of the statute. The State
submits that a signed, written ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.